John Keiser writes:
> What we're left with is this: the original *program* is freely
> redistributable, but a *derivative work* is freely redistributable
> under two conditions: it must contain 60% or more of the original
> code, and it must be a JDK 1.1 compiler.
There are days when I think that, despite me freezing
and starving, RMS is just a 100% right.
What does "60%" means? Lines of code? Lines of code minus
comments? Bytes? Bytes minus whitespaces? Bytes in binary?
60% of CPU execution time?
What does "contain" mean? That the source files are in
the distribution? That the symbols are in the binary?
Do they have to be called at all? Stripped or not? In
each binary, or in all binaries in the distribution
summed up? What if part of the code is shuffled into
a DLL?
What bugs me most is that the people coming up with ideas
like this are highly paid lawyers that claim to know what
they are doing. Blood-red herrings.
Let one thing be known: the current onslaught of "Open Source"
and "More Open Source" and "Less Open Source" and "Partly
Open Source" and "Partially Closed Open Source" gets to be
outright silly. End transmission.
b.
